NationStates Jolt Archive

I know, I know--no big shock to anyone who follows this debate honestly, but since the Senate finally got off its ass and released the report (and bearing in mind that there was a thread here just recently claiming some doubt on the issue), I figure it's worth saying again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/):
WASHINGTON - There’s no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report issued Friday on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush’s justification for invading Iraq.

Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.

The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

Pwnt.

You're right - it is worth saying again. It seems to take some time for it to sink in with some people.

Say it with me:
"no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida"
and
"postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents."

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam’s government “did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

Ah, the war began in 2003. So that's not information the government had in 2003.

It was probably more along these lines, from information obtained during the Clinton Administration.

"On November 4, 1998, the U.S.Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictmentof Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States "The 9/11 Comission Report"
Chapter 4, Page 21

Obviously this is a liberaldemocratmuslimterrorist propaganda for election year! Nooo relevance at all to anything other than Clinton being sore that he got impeached!

That's nice. I doubt it will change anyone's opinions. As much as people say Bush is hell-bent on turning the U.S. into 1984, what scares me is how many people are way ahead of him and probably don't think he's quick enough with it.

That's nice. I doubt it will change anyone's opinions. As much as people say Bush is hell-bent on turning the U.S. into 1984, what scares me is how many people are way ahead of him and probably don't think he's quick enough with it.

Many of whom are on this forum. You're right. Scary.

bah, facts. can prove things that are even remotely true with 'em, etc.

I read a survey the other day where it showed the percent of people that believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and their education level, and to no surprise those with lower education levels had a high percent of believing that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the 9-11 attacks, and had ties to AL-Qaeda.

Ah, the war began in 2003. So that's not information the government had in 2003.

It was probably more along these lines, from information obtained during the Clinton Administration.

Quoting from a US indictment of Bin Laden proves what? Thats not intelligence, thats a charge from 1998.

I read a survey the other day where it showed the percent of people that believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and their education level, and to no surprise those with lower education levels had a high percent of believing that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the 9-11 attacks, and had ties to AL-Qaeda.
That's because idiots are easier to brainwash.

To quote a presidential dialog:

Reporter: "What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?"
Bush: (note he says this very enthusiastically) "Nothing!"

I read a survey the other day where it showed the percent of people that believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, and their education level, and to no surprise those with lower education levels had a high percent of believing that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind the 9-11 attacks, and had ties to AL-Qaeda.

I saw a gallup poll that said 43% of americans believe saddam had a hand in 9/11. I hope were not that stupid:p. It amuses me that people still believe this even after el presidente bush stated the opposite. Who do they believe thinks this? I thought it was just bush and his boys...

Quoting from a US indictment of Bin Laden proves what? Thats not intelligence, thats a charge from 1998.

Indictments are based on gathered evidence.

That report was issued after the beginning of the war, as Deep Kimchi already pointed out. Prior to the start of the war, there was sufficient reason to believe that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Also, the CIA said there were WMDs in Iraq. I don't have that much faith in the CIA to prove a negative, which is much harder to do than to prove a positive. How can the CIA be sure that there was no connection (any connection would most likely not be flaunted to the world but rather kept secret) when it mistakenly thought there were WMDs?

Begoner21;11655907']That report was issued after the beginning of the war, as Deep Kimchi already pointed out. Prior to the start of the war, there was sufficient reason to believe that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.Let's see. If there was no sufficient reason to believe today that there was no link, why should there be sufficient reason then to believe so?

Begoner21;11655907']That report was issued after the beginning of the war, as Deep Kimchi already pointed out. Prior to the start of the war, there was sufficient reason to believe that there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Also, the CIA said there were WMDs in Iraq. I don't have that much faith in the CIA to prove a negative, which is much harder to do than to prove a positive. How can the CIA be sure that there was no connection (any connection would most likely not be flaunted to the world but rather kept secret) when it mistakenly thought there were WMDs?

Hmmm. I figured out that there was no connection between the two before the war started and I was just a grad student. How? I paid attention.

The only link between the two that the administration was touting was Zarqawi--the Prague link had already been discredited by then--and yet anyone who paid attention knew Zarqawi was in the northern no-fly zone under the protection of coalition forces. Doesn't look to me like Saddam and Zarqawi had much in common--in fact, it looked like they didn't much like each other, and guess what? They didn't.

It's called critical thinking, and if people like you hadn't been so busy pissing yourselves over the threat that wasn't, maybe we wouldn't have given Dubya carte blanche to go to war. Plenty of Dems deserve to be kicked in the nads over this as well, so don't go thinking I'm picking on you especially.

Let's see. If there was no sufficient reason to believe today that there was no link, why should there be sufficient reason then to believe so?

Because we have the benefit of additional information today. However, I think that the CIA report is outdated -- new evidence has come to light showing a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda which may not have been there in 2005. That report is false, but will most likely be seized upon by Democrats as a chance to criticize the administration and call them a bunch of liars.

Begoner21;11655982']Because we have the benefit of additional information today. That's like executing someone and then noting with regret that he didn't commit the crime he was executed for.
However, I think that the CIA report is outdated -- new evidence has come to light showing a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda which may not have been there in 2005. That report is false, but will most likely be seized upon by Democrats as a chance to criticize the administration and call them a bunch of liars.If I want a conspiracy theory to swallow, I'll go talk to Ocean Drive.

Hmmm. I figured out that there was no connection between the two before the war started and I was just a grad student. How? I paid attention.

You figured out there was no connection, all by yourself, even though you lacked all the necessary data to form an accurate conclusion? Good for you. That's like saying you "figured out" that there is no God because you believe in evolution and the Big Bang. Is there any proof that says there was no connection between Al-Qaeda in Iraq or is there simply an absence of proof tying Al-Qaeda and Iraq together? It is the latter -- I didn't see an Iraqi government document authoritatively stating that they did not have relations with Al-Qaeda. Anyone can draw erroneous conclusions based on meagre information -- even the CIA. Do you think that you know better than our administration, which has much more data at hand than you can even begin to dream of comprehending?

Plenty of Dems deserve to be kicked in the nads over this as well, so don't go thinking I'm picking on you especially.

No, plenty of Dems need to be applauded for making the correct choice despite what their hippy, pacifist constituents may have thought.

That's like executing someone and then noting with regret that he didn't commit the crime he was executed for.

If the man was declared guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, than he should be executed according to the penal code in his particular state. If exonerating evidence comes to light after the trial, you cannot blame the jurors for condemning him.

If I want a conspiracy theory to swallow, I'll go talk to Ocean Drive.

To which conspiracy theory are you referring? The one that says that two US-hating Sunni Arabs colluded to attack the US? Yeah, I guess that would be hard to swallow, wouldn't it?

Indictments are based on gathered evidence.
ENTER on GITMO
(The camera pans over the lovely bay, before slowly zooming in to camp X-ray, as screams are becoming more and more audible, the camera moves into one of the interrogation cells)
(the camera focuses on a 17-year old boy captured in Afghanistan)
"For God's sake, not my feet!"
(A quick switch to a US guard, his face in silhouette)
"Just tell us Al-Qaeda and Saddam were working together and we'll let you go..."
(The camera switches back to the suspect)
"How's about get to fu-AIEE MY EYES!... ok... ok... they were working together all along, is that what you want to hear?"
"Yep, so now you can get on a plane and go back to Afghanistan"
"Oh cheers"
(The camera returns to the US guard)
"Only joking, we're just going to shoot you"
"You mother fu-"
(the camera switches to a hidden firing squad)
*automatic gunfire ensues*

There's my own dramatic idea of what might have gathered that evidence, and I'm quite sure it's at least mildly accurate.

Begoner21;11656035']If the man was declared guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, than he should be executed according to the penal code in his particular state. If exonerating evidence comes to light after the trial, you cannot blame the jurors for condemning him.


I guess that's why we have a lovely situation in some places where there is no trial or jurors at all and we just hold prisoners indefinitely. Saves the trouble of that pesky "reasonable doubt" that seems to keep interfering with the national imperialist ambitions people like you are so fond of.

Saves the trouble of that pesky "reasonable doubt" that seems to keep interfering with the national imperialist ambitions people like you are so fond of.

The US neither has imperialist ambitions nor would I be fond of such ambitions. And I do think that everybody whom the US arrests needs to be tried and found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, before a military tribunal, before being sent to prison.

Begoner21;11656153']The US neither has imperialist ambitions nor would I be fond of such ambitions.
The US has had imperialistic ambitions practically since the time it was founded, and today it's worse than ever, only we call it "spheres of influence" or "hegemony" instead of "empire." It's the same shit with a different brand name.

Begoner21;11656153']The US neither has imperialist ambitions nor would I be fond of such ambitions.

Well, the first part of that statement is certainly up for debate. The culture of manifest destiny needn't have died out simply because the government is no longer officially annexing places. Imperialism is as much about gaining resources in other places, not necessarily the land or borders on a map, and there are many who might say the US hegemony is already an empire and will continue to be so as long as it can get away with it.

But I think that's another topic.

And I do think that everybody whom the US arrests needs to be tried and found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, before a military tribunal, before being sent to prison.

Military tribunals aren't really my idea of a free and fair trial, to be honest.

Begoner21;11656024']You figured out there was no connection, all by yourself, even though you lacked all the necessary data to form an accurate conclusion? Good for you. That's like saying you "figured out" that there is no God because you believe in evolution and the Big Bang. Is there any proof that says there was no connection between Al-Qaeda in Iraq or is there simply an absence of proof tying Al-Qaeda and Iraq together? It is the latter -- I didn't see an Iraqi government document authoritatively stating that they did not have relations with Al-Qaeda. Anyone can draw erroneous conclusions based on meagre information -- even the CIA. Do you think that you know better than our administration, which has much more data at hand than you can even begin to dream of comprehending?
You have things like bin Laden offered the services of Al-Queda to Saudi Arabia to protect it from Iraq when they invaded Kuwait and was upset that not only was he turned down but that Americans where allowed in the holy ground, or that he had actually didn't like the Saddam regime, or any of the other little things that would make their collaboration go against the grain, but you know-hard to see when you're all wrapped in a flag and scrapping for a fight.

...or that he had actually didn't like the Saddam regime.

I'm not saying that he liked the Saddam regime, simply that his terrorist group conducted business with Saddam. It's not like Osama would make a choice to his disadvantage simply because of his personal preferences. Look at the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact -- Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union despised each other, which is much more than you can say for Saddam and Osama, both of whom are Sunni Arabs. Yet the Nazis and the Soviets worked out a treaty to their mutual advantage; so too could Osama and Saddam.

Begoner21;11656309']I'm not saying that he liked the Saddam regime, simply that his terrorist group conducted business with Saddam. It's not like Osama would make a choice to his disadvantage simply because of his personal preferences. Look at the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact -- Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union despised each other, which is much more than you can say for Saddam and Osama, both of whom are Sunni Arabs. Yet the Nazis and the Soviets worked out a treaty to their mutual advantage; so too could Osama and Saddam.

Ah, I almost feel like dusting off The Stretchy just for you. Two people could be baptists, doesn't mean that they're out making signs for Fred Phelps. I'm going to misspell something because I suspect it will have little effect on you, but the more important factor that bin Laden's Sunni childhood is wahabism (misspelled, couldn't find a correct one in the time I was willing to spend...)

Ah, I almost feel like dusting off The Stretchy just for you. Two people could be baptists, doesn't mean that they're out making signs for Fred Phelps. I'm going to misspell something because I suspect it will have little effect on you, but the more important factor that bin Laden's Sunni childhood is wasabism (misspelled, couldn't find a correct one in the time I was willing to spend...)

Wahabism.

Wasabi is a Japanese type horseradish spice :p

Wahabism.

Wasabi is a Japanese type horseradish spice :p

See now I knew there was a reason that it sounded silly...thanks man.

The US has had imperialistic ambitions practically since the time it was founded, and today it's worse than ever, only we call it "spheres of influence" or "hegemony" instead of "empire." It's the same shit with a different brand name.

I agree that the US was imperialistic in the early days of the foundation of the country. Back then, everybody was imperialistic, so you can't fault us for that. Imperialism didn't really die out until after the second world war, at which point the US stopped its hegemonic tendencies, too. Sure, we have spheres of influence, but that's because the US is the sole super-power -- as such, we're bound to have some influence. The shit is quite distinct.

Ah, I almost feel like dusting off The Stretchy just for you. Two people could be baptists, doesn't mean that they're out making signs for Fred Phelps. I'm going to misspell something because I suspect it will have little effect on you, but the more important factor that bin Laden's Sunni childhood is wahabism (misspelled, couldn't find a correct one in the time I was willing to spend...)

I never claimed that all Sunni Arabs were like blood brothers. I was simply using that to show the similarities between Saddam's ideology and that of Osama -- they both hate the US and they both are Sunni Arabs. Hitler and Stalin were far more diametrically opposed, politically. Hell, Hitler even said that he wanted to kill the commies. That didn't stop Stalin from agreeing to partition Europe with Germany. Likewise, their minor squabbles wouldn't prevent Saddam and Osama for coming together to plot against the US, their common enemy. They, I must admit, are rational people, no matter how irrationally horrible 9/11 and the Kurdish ethnic cleansing campaign was. However, I do agree that horseradish sauce did have a very powerful effect on Osama's youth, and its spiciness steered him toward religious extremism. :)

Begoner21;11656460']I agree that the US was imperialistic in the early days of the foundation of the country. Back then, everybody was imperialistic, so you can't fault us for that. Imperialism didn't really die out until after the second world war, at which point the US stopped its hegemonic tendencies, too. Sure, we have spheres of influence, but that's because the US is the sole super-power -- as such, we're bound to have some influence. The shit is quite distinct.

WHAT? "Good Nieghbor Policy" including films about South America being 'little USes and kind vacation spots...and Germany being so inundated with American culture that the filmmakers had to form a confrence in the late 60s (Oberhausen) to pressure the government into encouraging and supporting German produced works? As a character says in a late 60s Wim Wender movie, "The Amercians are colonizing our minds."

Shit man, and that's just film.

Seriously dude, the worm isn't worth the hook...

Begoner21;11656460']Imperialism didn't really die out until after the second world war, at which point the US stopped its hegemonic tendencies, too. Sure, we have spheres of influence, but that's because the US is the sole super-power -- as such, we're bound to have some influence.

Same thing, different name.

The "sphere's of influence" aren't a product of the post-Cold War/sole superpower circumstance.

Latin America was very much an American 'sphere of influence' during the Cold War, as was the Middle East to a certain extent after the U.K. withdrew (see Iran, Iraq etc).

It is nothing new, it is part and parcel of US history (you can dress the name up any way you like), just like it is part of French, Spanish, British, Portuguese etc etc history.

Begoner21;11656470']I never claimed that all Sunni Arabs were like blood brothers. I was simply using that to show the similarities between Saddam's ideology and that of Osama -- they both hate the US and they both are Sunni Arabs. Hitler and Stalin were far more diametrically opposed, politically. Hell, Hitler even said that he wanted to kill the commies. That didn't stop Stalin from agreeing to partition Europe with Germany. Likewise, their minor squabbles wouldn't prevent Saddam and Osama for coming together to plot against the US, their common enemy. They, I must admit, are rational people, no matter how irrationally horrible 9/11 and the Kurdish ethnic cleansing campaign was. However, I do agree that horseradish sauce did have a very powerful effect on Osama's youth, and its spiciness steered him toward religious extremism. :)
You keep bringing up that Nazi/Soviet link...how'd that work out again...oh yeah...

And since bin Laden is far more concerned about the Middle East than he is the US a leader like Saddam is not going to make a "strange bedfellow." But don't let that cloud your bloodlust, you wouldn't want to be that different in finding reasons to justify it...

...the Amercians are colonizing our minds."

Well, that's because it was a war. There were pyschological, political, and physical battlefields. It wasn't really hegemony so much as it was a campaign against Soviet influence. It was an Us versus Them kind of thing where we tried to align our "neighbors" to our point of view and against the damn commies. After the war was over, however, we immediately dropped all of that stuff.

Begoner21;11656497']Well, that's because it was a war. There were pyschological, political, and physical battlefields. It wasn't really hegemony so much as it was a campaign against Soviet influence. It was an Us versus Them kind of thing where we tried to align our "neighbors" to our point of view and against the damn commies. After the war was over, however, we immediately dropped all of that stuff.

"tried to align" in a horizontal, underground sort of direction....

And if the US "dropped all of that stuff" how come aiding the coup attempts against Hugo Chavez?

Begoner21;11656497'] After the war was over, however, we immediately dropped all of that stuff.

Uh, yeeeah.

You keep bringing up that Nazi/Soviet link...how'd that work out again...oh yeah...

I never said that the relationship proved ultimately fruitful. I simply said how two ideological enemies may come together to work out some sort of arrangement for their mutual benefit despite their very different stances. Again, |Hitler-Stalin| > |Osama-Saddam|.

And since bin Laden is far more concerned about the Middle East than he is the US a leader like Saddam is not going to make a "strange bedfellow." But don't let that cloud your bloodlust, you wouldn't want to be that different in finding reasons to justify it...

Yes, Osama is extremely concerned with the Middle East while the US is just a minor nuisance. That's why he murdered thousands of people in the US with a single terror attack. I mean, usually, he kills millions in the Middle East, right? Maybe I misunderstood your sentence, though. Are you saying that because Osama is not that concerned with the US, then Saddam is not going to make a bad ally? That's a triple negative right there. Damn, that sentence "clouted my bloodlust" right there -- now I'm just confused. And anyway, I don't "lust" for blood. In fact, I want to prevent more blood being spilled on American soil.

And if the US "dropped all of that stuff" how come aiding the coup attempts against Hugo Chavez?

Source, please?

Begoner21;11656522']I never said that the relationship proved ultimately fruitful. I simply said how two ideological enemies may come together to work out some sort of arrangement for their mutual benefit despite their very different stances. Again, |Hitler-Stalin| > |Osama-Saddam|.



Yes, Osama is extremely concerned with the Middle East while the US is just a minor nuisance. That's why he murdered thousands of people in the US with a single terror attack. I mean, usually, he kills millions in the Middle East, right? Maybe I misunderstood your sentence, though. Are you saying that because Osama is not that concerned with the US, then Saddam is not going to make a bad ally? That's a triple negative right there. Damn, that sentence "clouted my bloodlust" right there -- now I'm just confused. And anyway, I don't "lust" for blood. In fact, I want to prevent more blood being spilled on American soil.

But why did he attack the US? Ah ah ah ah...don't say because he hates our fredoms...it starts with M, ends with T and rhymes with Middle East.

Saddam is not the kind of leader he wants for the Middle East so he's not likely going to ally with him since it takes more steps backwards for him than forwards.

I'm not saying this is where you where going to go with it, but please don't whip out the 'terrorist sympathizer' chestnut that is so often next in this tired old playbook. It's just silly.

But why did he attack the US? Ah ah ah ah...don't say because he hates our fredoms...it starts with M, ends with T and rhymes with Middle East.

I won't pretend to understand what goes through Osama's twisted mind. I'm sure that he feels the US support of Israel is a greivance to Muslims everywhere. However, I think that the more important issue on his mind was that he does indeed hate our "freedoms." He despises any country that disregards sharia law, and he does so with rabid venom. The US not only refuses to accept sharia law, but it flaunts it in the face of Osama and it is the pinnacle of the "free world" -- an excellent target to attack if you dislike the free world. I'm sure there were many other factors that contributed to his making of the decision, but they were more minor disputes.

Saddam is not the kind of leader he wants for the Middle East so he's not likely going to ally with him since it takes more steps backwards for him than forwards.

Again, the Hitler example. Hitler was planning on invading the Soviet Union even when he signed the Molotov-Ribentropp Pact (hell, he planned on it since the 20s). He did so because he could gain a temporary advantage in one area (ie, he could devote a larger portion of his army to war with France and the UK) without being at a serious disadvantage in another. However, in signing the pact, Hitler did lose territory in Europe, which was detrimental for his goal of conquering the Soviet Union. So, in that case, Hitler made a deal with his diametrically different ideological enemy for the sole purpose of gaining a temporary advantage, even at a long-term physical disadvantage. How does this apply to Saddam and Osama? The first two conditions hold true, all right, but the third does not. Osama did not "take a step backward" if he dealt with Saddam. Their alliance was limited in the sense that they both had a common enemy, and that might have been as far as it went. Did Osama lose something if he asked for Iraqi help with his terror plot? No, he only gained something. So from any point of view, what Osama did was a much, much more diluted version of what Hitler did, and Osama's supposed meetings with Saddam could only have been advantageous for him. A real win-win situation.

I'm not saying this is where you where going to go with it, but please don't whip out the 'terrorist sympathizer' chestnut that is so often next in this tired old playbook. It's just silly.

Nah, the worst I'll call you is a retard or an idiot, so don't worry. :)

Before the war claim of Bush administration: there is proof.
Nature of proof is such that if there is proof that X is true, then X must be true.

Fact: Before war many claimed that Bush's claims were highly unlikely. The reasons they cited look very much like the same reasons being used in hindsight.

Fact: Before war, many claimed that they doubted there was strong evidence, much less proof of the things Bush claimed there was proof of, a view that correlates with the hindsight analysis.

Bush apologists conclude, there is no link between the pre-war claims that on the balance of facts Bush's stated proven scenario was highly unlikely and highly implausable, and the hindsight analysis that concludes exactly that - the correlation of the war-dissenters' views and the facts as they proved to be on examination is a coincidence rather than highly pridictable and the most apparent outcome based on the facts available at the time.

:mad: Wow, fancy facts conspiring so that the terrorist loving loonies were accidently right, not just in general but even down to the indicators that were the rationale of they cited at the time...

Why does it not surprise me that The Nazz started this thread?

Why does it not surprise me that The Nazz started this thread?

Because I'm one of the major right-wing ass beaters on this forum?

Because I'm one of the major right-wing ass beaters on this forum?

Better make it ass-kicking. They'd enjoy any other form of physical abuse on them cheeks.

I know, I know--no big shock to anyone who follows this debate honestly, but since the Senate finally got off its ass and released the report (and bearing in mind that there was a thread here just recently claiming some doubt on the issue), I figure it's worth saying again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14728447/):


This is news ????

This is news ????

It certainly seems like it was to some.

Begoner21;11656605']I won't pretend to understand what goes through Osama's twisted mind. I'm sure that he feels the US support of Israel is a greivance to Muslims everywhere. However, I think that the more important issue on his mind was that he does indeed hate our "freedoms." He despises any country that disregards sharia law, and he does so with rabid venom. The US not only refuses to accept sharia law, but it flaunts it in the face of Osama and it is the pinnacle of the "free world" -- an excellent target to attack if you dislike the free world. I'm sure there were many other factors that contributed to his making of the decision, but they were more minor disputes.

That's the thing, champ. You don't have to pretend-he won't stop telling you what's got a burr up his ass, and I gotta tell ya-it's got fuck all to do with our 'freedoms.' Sorry. If you still believe that fairy tale, and that anything else is a 'minor dispute,' then your level of self deciption is too deep to unravel in a single thread.

I don't care how sweet the milk tastes, it's time to get off the nipple.

I'm skipping over your ridiculous Hitler/Soviet comparison because it continues to hold no water because it's on the pretext that bin Laden's main concern was our 'freedoms.' That you still believe that is cartoonish.

Before the war claim of Bush administration: there is proof.
Nature of proof is such that if there is proof that X is true, then X must be true.

Fact: Before war many claimed that Bush's claims were highly unlikely. The reasons they cited look very much like the same reasons being used in hindsight.

Fact: Before war, many claimed that they doubted there was strong evidence, much less proof of the things Bush claimed there was proof of, a view that correlates with the hindsight analysis.

Bush apologists conclude, there is no link between the pre-war claims that on the balance of facts Bush's stated proven scenario was highly unlikely and highly implausable, and the hindsight analysis that concludes exactly that - the correlation of the war-dissenters' views and the facts as they proved to be on examination is a coincidence rather than highly pridictable and the most apparent outcome based on the facts available at the time.

Wow, fancy facts conspiring so that the terrorist loving loonies were accidently right, not just in general but even down to the indicators that were the rationale of they cited at the time...
Amen, that's the most frustrating thing to hear them go, "Oh it's easy to say in hindsight." Hindsight? We said it before hand, we filled the streets and screamed it, we jumped up and down and pointed. It's not fucking hindsight, you where fucking wrong.

You're right - it is worth saying again. It seems to take some time for it to sink in with some people.

Say it with me:
"no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida"
and
"postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents."
It got Lost in Translation.

No connection to terrorism.

No WMD's.

No mobile chemical weapon labs.

None of it.

Get the fuck over it, already.

The US has had imperialistic ambitions practically since the time it was founded, and today it's worse than ever, only we call it "spheres of influence" or "hegemony" instead of "empire." It's the same shit with a different brand name.

Actually, sphere of influence and Empire are two seperate entities.

That's the thing, champ. You don't have to pretend-he won't stop telling you what's got a burr up his ass, and I gotta tell ya-it's got fuck all to do with our 'freedoms.' Sorry. If you still believe that fairy tale, and that anything else is a 'minor dispute,' then your level of self deciption is too deep to unravel in a single thread.

Aha, so you are Osama's personal psychiatrist and you know everything that goes through his mind? Does he tell you his deepest greviances, that the US is just a bunch of big bullies picking on the Muslims? No, I don't think so. The thing is, sport, that you are deluding yourself with the notion that you know more about Osama than the administration. News flash: you don't. I am fairly certain that Osama does wish to impose sharia law upon the world, which is obviously in direct contrast to the great level of civil liberties we enjoy in the US. Guess what? He doesn't like that. He doesn't like that the US is powerful while Arab countries can barely feed their own people, and he thinks that's the US's fault.

I don't care how sweet the milk tastes, it's time to get off the nipple.

If there is anything worse than blatant ignorance, it is that combined with a gigantic ego. You < CIA. You < US government. The nipple is smarter than you -- you should get your milk from it. What better than feeding from an ultra-intelligent nipple, I ask you?!

I'm skipping over your ridiculous Hitler/Soviet comparison because it continues to hold no water because it's on the pretext that bin Laden's main concern was our 'freedoms.' That you still believe that is cartoonish.

It holds no water? No, I'm pretty sure you're glossing over it because it is a perfect example that refutes any claims that Saddam and Osama could not have co-operated given their ideological opposition. That is an outright lie.

Amen, that's the most frustrating thing to hear them go, "Oh it's easy to say in hindsight." Hindsight? We said it before hand, we filled the streets and screamed it, we jumped up and down and pointed. It's not fucking hindsight, you where fucking wrong.

Yes, you "filled the streets" with your lack of knowledge. There was damning proof of an Iraq-Osama connection, and there still is. There are documents showing that the Iraqi government was dealing with the Taliban who used Al-Qaeda as their "bargaining chip," if you will. Thank God that you were just in the streets and not in the White House, because if you were, another couple thousand of people would be dead. I'd like to see what you'd say of your precious "hindsight" then.

Begoner21;11659181']
Yes, you "filled the streets" with your lack of knowledge. There was damning proof of an Iraq-Osama connection, and there still is. There are documents showing that the Iraqi government was dealing with the Taliban who used Al-Qaeda as their "bargaining chip," if you will. Thank God that you were just in the streets and not in the White House, because if you were, another couple thousand of people would be dead. I'd like to see what you'd say of your precious "hindsight" then.
Instead more then 40,000 civillians have been killed... :rolleyes:

Oh, and it's no surprise if the Iraqi government dealt with the Taliban - so did Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the only three countries who recognised the Taliban government. Also, don't forget that U.S. and Argentinian petroleum companies (UNOCAL and Bridas) dealt with them too.

Instead more then 40,000 civillians have been killed... :rolleyes:

Oh, and it's no surprise if the Iraqi government dealt with the Taliban - so did Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the only three countries who recognised the Taliban government. Also, don't forget that U.S. and Argentinian petroleum companies (UNOCAL and Bridas) dealt with them too.

Let us also remember that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. all withdrew their recognition of the Taliban government.

Begoner21;11659181']If there is anything worse than blatant ignorance, it is that combined with a gigantic ego. You < CIA. You < US government. The nipple is smarter than you -- you should get your milk from it. What better than feeding from an ultra-intelligent nipple, I ask you?!In normal times, you might have a point, but since 2001, the CIA and more importantly, the Vice-President's office, was so consumed with finding proof of a tie betwen Iraq and al Qaeda that they got stupid about it. That much has become painfully obvious to anyone who's paid a lick of attention in the last five years. They were jumping at ghosts and eagerly swallowing whatever bullshit Ahmad Chalabi would give them. So in this case, you're damn right that we were smarter than the CIA and smarter than the US government.

Yes, you "filled the streets" with your lack of knowledge. There was damning proof of an Iraq-Osama connection, and there still is. There are documents showing that the Iraqi government was dealing with the Taliban who used Al-Qaeda as their "bargaining chip," if you will. Thank God that you were just in the streets and not in the White House, because if you were, another couple thousand of people would be dead. I'd like to see what you'd say of your precious "hindsight" then.

Wake up sport--tens of thousands of people have died in the intervening years, and for no reason. It's called the fucking Iraq War, and nearly 3,000 US soldiers have died, and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for the ego and political gain of George W. Bush and the Republican party, and in the meantime, the Taliban has basically taken over Waziristan and is threatening to retake all of Afghanistan. Awesome job your boy did there. So don't deign to tell us that our decisions would have been disastrous--it woud be pretty fucking hard to screw up worse than the idiots in charge have.

In the grand scheme of things The Nazz.... tens of thousands is rather low for a war of this magnitude.

Wake up sport--tens of thousands of people have died in the intervening years, and for no reason.

I was referring to US citizens, not Iraqi citizens and foreign terrorists. The fact that so many people died in Iraq is regrettable, and I am not saying that going to war the way we did was a good decision, but I think it averted another 9/11-style catastrophe.

In the grand scheme of things The Nazz.... tens of thousands is rather low for a war of this magnitude.
Go to Iraq and say that. I dare you.

Begoner21;11659181']Aha, so you are Osama's personal psychiatrist and you know everything that goes through his mind? Does he tell you his deepest greviances, that the US is just a bunch of big bullies picking on the Muslims? No, I don't think so. The thing is, sport, that you are deluding yourself with the notion that you know more about Osama than the administration. News flash: you don't. I am fairly certain that Osama does wish to impose sharia law upon the world, which is obviously in direct contrast to the great level of civil liberties we enjoy in the US. Guess what? He doesn't like that. He doesn't like that the US is powerful while Arab countries can barely feed their own people, and he thinks that's the US's fault.
I don't have to be his psychologist, sluggo. As I said and you skipped, he won't shut up about what bothers him and his goals.



Begoner21;11659181']If there is anything worse than blatant ignorance, it is that combined with a gigantic ego. You < CIA. You < US government. The nipple is smarter than you -- you should get your milk from it. What better than feeding from an ultra-intelligent nipple, I ask you?!
We'll ignore for a moment that on the subject at hand, it's Me 1 Government 0...You know why they put all that freedom of speech and press and things like that into the constitution? So you wouldn't take it for fucking granted that 'the government knows best' and ask a damn question now and then...



Begoner21;11659181']It holds no water? No, I'm pretty sure you're glossing over it because it is a perfect example that refutes any claims that Saddam and Osama could not have co-operated given their ideological opposition. That is an outright lie.
No, it's neither a lie nor is it a perfect example. It relies on the myth that he 'hates our freedoms.'



Begoner21;11659181']Yes, you "filled the streets" with your lack of knowledge. There was damning proof of an Iraq-Osama connection, and there still is. There are documents showing that the Iraqi government was dealing with the Taliban who used Al-Qaeda as their "bargaining chip," if you will. Thank God that you were just in the streets and not in the White House, because if you were, another couple thousand of people would be dead. I'd like to see what you'd say of your precious "hindsight" then.
Since he wasn't building all of that and there was no connection I think we'd be in a far better place right now.

Let us also remember that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. all withdrew their recognition of the Taliban government.

After the attacks, yes. Though not Pakistan.

We'll ignore for a moment that on the subject at hand, it's Me 1 Government 0...You know why they put all that freedom of speech and press and things like that into the constitution? So you wouldn't take it for fucking granted that 'the government knows best' and ask a damn question now and then...
That's what I've been trying to say too :)

I don't have to be his psychologist, sluggo. As I said and you skipped, he won't shut up about what bothers him and his goals.

And what goals were you referring to in particular, kiddo? Maybe the part where he said "let's kill some imperialist American dogs"? The "let's impose sharia law upon the world" part? Yes, he keeps spouting anti-US propaganda at every turn, much of it to do with jealousy at how powerful America is and much of it to do with anger at how free America is.

We'll ignore for a moment that on the subject at hand, it's Me 1 Government 0...You know why they put all that freedom of speech and press and things like that into the constitution? So you wouldn't take it for fucking granted that 'the government knows best' and ask a damn question now and then...

No, it's government: 1, you: 0. As I recall, we did go into Iraq, so the government beat you there. As I recall, there have been no more terror attacks in the US since 9/11. So the government snatches another point there. Oh, and speaking of the whole freedom of speech thing an whatnot, read the 9/11 Commission's report regarding the Iraq-Osama connection:

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda...moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam."

Yes, that's +1 for government transparency, as it also concluded that there were ties between the two groups. The free press asked a damn question now and again and it turned out the government was right. So I guess the final tally is government: 3, you: 0. Better luck next time.

No, it's neither a lie nor is it a perfect example. It relies on the myth that he 'hates our freedoms.'

It does not rely on any "myths." It simply assumes that Al-Qaeda hates America. Are you going to tell me that's a "myth," too, and 9/11 was just a sign of Osama's love for America which he could not adequately express, and instead turned towards pain? Please.

Since he wasn't building all of that and there was no connection I think we'd be in a far better place right now.

Huh? Building what?

Begoner21;11659392']And what goals were you referring to in particular, kiddo? Maybe the part where he said "let's kill some imperialist American dogs"? The "let's impose sharia law upon the world" part? Yes, he keeps spouting anti-US propaganda at every turn, much of it to do with jealousy at how powerful America is and much of it to do with anger at how free America is.
And I can want a pink flying unicorn, but it still ain't gonna happen. Or are you so frightened of the Bin Laden boogeyman that you actually believe that he can make that come about? Have you swallowed the neo-con bullshit so thoroughly that you actually believe that a group of people living in caves can actually bring about the destruction of the United States and impose their version of Sharia upon this nation? Because that's what you're arguing here as justification--that Bin Laden's people would not only conquer, but impose their will upon this country, a nation of nearly 300 million people.

That's what makes the howlers like you so pathetic. You're scared of a shadow, of less than a shadow. You're scared of a wisp of a thought of a shadow. I mean, at least the neocons in charge admit that they're full of shit, and that they're feeding fear to the public to stay in charge, but you actually believe in the threat. How sad is that?

Begoner21;11659392']
No, it's government: 1, you: 0. As I recall, we did go into Iraq, so the government beat you there. As I recall, there have been no more terror attacks in the US since 9/11. So the government snatches another point there. Oh, and speaking of the whole freedom of speech thing an whatnot, read the 9/11 Commission's report regarding the Iraq-Osama connection:

"Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda...moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam."

Yes, that's +1 for government transparency, at it also concluded that there were ties between the two groups. The free press asked a damn question now and again and it turned out the government was right. So I guess the final tally is government: 3, you: 0. Better luck next time.
Let's see...
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

Though Bin Ladin had promised Taliban leaders that he would be circumspect, he broke this promise almost immediately, giving an inflammatory interview to CNN in March 1997. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar promptly "invited" Bin Ladin to move to Kandahar, ostensibly in the interests of Bin Ladin's own security but more likely to situate him where he might be easier to control.

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

And I can want a pink flying unicorn, but it still ain't gonna happen. Or are you so frightened of the Bin Laden boogeyman that you actually believe that he can make that come about? Have you swallowed the neo-con bullshit so thoroughly that you actually believe that a group of people living in caves can actually bring about the destruction of the United States and impose their version of Sharia upon this nation? Because that's what you're arguing here as justification--that Bin Laden's people would not only conquer, but impose their will upon this country, a nation of nearly 300 million people.

You may want a pink flying unicorn, but you rationally know that you are not going to be able to obtain one, so you don't start a genetic engineering lab, nor do you attempt to cross-breed horses, narwhals, and birds. You accept the fact that you will not have a pink flying unicorn. Osama, on the other hand does not. He knows that he is never going to accomplish his goals, but he tries to anyway. Is he going to subjugate the US? No, of course not. Is he going to stop trying? Hell, no. Look what happened on 9/11 -- he was able to deal a punch to the US despite operating from caves in the middle of nowhere. I am not arguing that Osama will eventually be king of the US -- I am saying that if he is left to his own devices, we will see more and more of 9/11-like attacks perpetrated by religious extremists like Osama who hate the US for its policies and freedoms.

That's what makes the howlers like you so pathetic. You're scared of a shadow, of less than a shadow. You're scared of a wisp of a thought of a shadow.

Yes, 9/11 was just a mass hallucination -- a figment of the imagination of all "neo-cons." Or are you saying that 9/11 was "less than a shadow"? I don't consider the deaths of thousands of people "less than a shadow" and I am insulted that you can consider it as such. I'm sure you would have been much more scared of that particular "wisp of a thought of a shadow" if you were in the WTC that day, but you weren't.

That's because idiots are easier to brainwash.

Its more likely because people with lower levels of education neither have the time nor the means to actually do some real diggin on the subject.

To be fair, there was a meeting between Iraqis and them al'Qeada folk about 10 years but Saddam wasnt a big fan of bin Laden. Kinda thought Islamic wackjobs were a threat to his power. Thats what I liked about him, paranoid as fuck.

Begoner21;11659608']religious extremists like Osama who hate the US for its policies NOT its freedoms.



.

fixed. If they hated people for being free, Sweden would be in ashes. Bin Laden himself said this, it has nothing to do with freedom. Its all about policies that threaten muslims in the eyes of bin Laden. He said just as you threaten our security, we shall threaten yours.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0201/afghanistan-80s.html

Come on, lets go to war with the US

If they hated people for being free, Sweden would be in ashes.

Yes, but Sweden and most European countries bow down to and appease religious extremists. In the US, we do not afford ourselves that luxury. Osama hates Sweden, but it is not a threat to him. The US, on the other hand, is a threat to worldwide terrorism and it's free and it's powerful. Looks like that hits the trifecta.

Begoner21;11659608']You may want a pink flying unicorn, but you rationally know that you are not going to be able to obtain one, so you don't start a genetic engineering lab, nor do you attempt to cross-breed horses, narwhals, and birds. You accept the fact that you will not have a pink flying unicorn. Osama, on the other hand does not. He knows that he is never going to accomplish his goals, but he tries to anyway. Is he going to subjugate the US? No, of course not. Is he going to stop trying? Hell, no. Look what happened on 9/11 -- he was able to deal a punch to the US despite operating from caves in the middle of nowhere. I am not arguing that Osama will eventually be king of the US -- I am saying that if he is left to his own devices, we will see more and more of 9/11-like attacks perpetrated by religious extremists like Osama who hate the US for its policies and freedoms.Oh, so it's more attacks you want to prevent, huh? Then how about actually going after him instead of going into Iraq? How about actually beefing up homeland security in the ports and along the borders instead of cutting funds to first responders? How about actually doing something that makes sense? Oh, but that would make sense and we can't have any of that. No, you folks are so scared by the overblown threat of the Bin Laden boogeyman that you'll take anything Bush does and be happy with it, and that is pathetic. You, sir, are pathetic.

Oh, so it's more attacks you want to prevent, huh? Then how about actually going after him instead of going into Iraq?

We should go after Osama himself -- we did so when we invaded Afghanistan. We struck at the heart of Al-Qaeda and the fanatic government which supported it. Unfortunately, Osama has proved quite elusive so far, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. Iraq was a government led by a ruler who ethnically cleansed his own people and had ties to Al-Qaeda. We need to send a message to governments everywhere -- the US will not accept any nation which harbors terrorists. Terrorists shall have no safe haven to continue their operations.

How about actually beefing up homeland security in the ports and along the borders instead of cutting funds to first responders?

You don't treat a condition by treating its symptoms. If your house catches on fire, do you try to put it out, or do you just crank the AC up? Obviously, you try to put out the fire. Increasing funding to first responders but allowing Al-Qaeda to roam free is justing upping the AC without dealing with the root cause of the problem -- religious extremists and Islamo-fascists (damn straight, that's an accurate term). If we close our eyes and try to build a metaphoric fence around the US, we are basically just counting down until the next terror attack. The US is simply too big and diverse to protect our borders completely without liberals jumping up and saying stuff about rights infringements.

You, sir, are pathetic.

Perhaps madam might be a more accurate term -- you never know.

Begoner21;11659782']
Perhaps madam might be a more accurate term -- you never know.
Pathetic is pathetic, no matter your gender.

That's what makes the howlers like you so pathetic. You're scared of a shadow, of less than a shadow. You're scared of a wisp of a thought of a shadow. I mean, at least the neocons in charge admit that they're full of shit, and that they're feeding fear to the public to stay in charge, but you actually believe in the threat. How sad is that?


"give me liberty or give me new sheets, as i seem to have wet the bed again. on second thought, the new sheets will be fine."

Begoner21;11659608']
Yes, 9/11 was just a mass hallucination -- a figment of the imagination of all "neo-cons." Or are you saying that 9/11 was "less than a shadow"? I don't consider the deaths of thousands of people "less than a shadow" and I am insulted that you can consider it as such. I'm sure you would have been much more scared of that particular "wisp of a thought of a shadow" if you were in the WTC that day, but you weren't.

So to clarify, you ARE scared of 9/11, and you place a value on human life such that you want to avoid a similar loss at all costs.

So why support an invasion and occupation of Iraq that kills not just a few thousand, but tens of thousands of people? Seems contradictory, unless of course you only value American civilians and not those third-world Iraqis.

I freaking hate how they act like every "enemy" is somehow in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden. And how everybody who doesn't particularly like what Bush is doing is "letting the terrorists win." The whole thing is sick.

So to clarify, you ARE scared of 9/11, and you place a value on human life such that you want to avoid a similar loss at all costs.

So why support an invasion and occupation of Iraq that kills not just a few thousand, but tens of thousands of people? Seems contradictory, unless of course you only value American civilians and not those third-world Iraqis.

Orwell was right. In order to support an empire, you have to dehumanize those you subject, because if you look at them as humans, you can't treat them horribly (unless you're a sociopath).

Once again...you fail to mention that its " NO CONNECTION TO 9 / 11 and Saddam and Al Queda "

There ARE connections to Saddams people and Al Queada .

More importantly the possibility that Saddam would use Al queda or another terror organization..the same way IRAN uses Hezbollah as a proxy to attack other governments could not be tolerated .

All the more telling with Saddan because he was still at war ...playing with the cease fire and the UN ..but still at war .

So to clarify, you ARE scared of 9/11, and you place a value on human life such that you want to avoid a similar loss at all costs.

I'm not scared of 9/11 -- I don't have a nervous breakdown every time it is mentioned. However, I do think that 9/11 violated our most fundamental right to life, and I think that needs to be preserved. I don't know whether I'd take it to the "at all costs" extreme, but if an action secures America by killing or hindering terrorists, it is hard to think of a case in which I'd be against it.

So why support an invasion and occupation of Iraq that kills not just a few thousand, but tens of thousands of people? Seems contradictory, unless of course you only value American civilians and not those third-world Iraqis.

There is one thing that I value more than the absolute toll of human life -- justice. If Saddam was aiding Osama to plan another 9/11, he needed to be removed. How many 9/11s would it take to justify an invasion of Iraq? We weren't about to wait for another one, and, at the time, it was the correct choice to invade Iraq. Yes, it is tragic that so many Iraqis died, but there was no alternative. It was them or us. Since they were led by a despotic ruler who was supposedly planning another terror attack in co-operation with Al-Qaeda, he was so clearly in the wrong. You cannot allow evil to prevail simply because taking out that evil would entail some civilian casuaties.

Begoner21;11660020']There is one thing that I value more than the absolute toll of human life -- justice. If Saddam was aiding Osama to plan another 9/11, he needed to be removed. How many 9/11s would it take to justify an invasion of Iraq? We weren't about to wait for another one, and, at the time, it was the correct choice to invade Iraq. Yes, it is tragic that so many Iraqis died, but there was no alternative. It was them or us. Since they were led by a despotic ruler who was supposedly planning another terror attack in co-operation with Al-Qaeda, he was so clearly in the wrong. You cannot allow evil to prevail simply because taking out that evil would entail some civilian casuaties. Death is death is death. I highly doubt the thousands of civilians really appreciated the "justice" of their demise.

Begoner21;11660020']I'm not scared of 9/11 -- I don't have a nervous breakdown every time it is mentioned. However, I do think that 9/11 violated our most fundamental right to life, and I think that needs to be preserved. I don't know whether I'd take it to the "at all costs" extreme, but if an action secures America by killing or hindering terrorists, it is hard to think of a case in which I'd be against it.

That last "if" is a rather big issue in this case. Frankly, I've seen nothing to indicate that invading random Middle Eastern nations is going to prevent anything like another terrorist attack.



There is one thing that I value more than the absolute toll of human life -- justice. If Saddam was aiding Osama to plan another 9/11, he needed to be removed. How many 9/11s would it take to justify an invasion of Iraq? We weren't about to wait for another one, and, at the time, it was the correct choice to invade Iraq. Yes, it is tragic that so many Iraqis died, but there was no alternative. It was them or us.

That's a nice either/or proposition, but it doesn't seem to hold water. And even if it did, once Saddam was removed and imprisoned, occupying the nation for what looks like an indefinite period of time has nothing to do with the 'justice' you are talking of.

The them or us mentality is pretty powerful... and it's been used to justify a great many morally bankrupt aggressive wars throughout history.

Since they were led by a despotic ruler who was supposedly planning another terror attack in co-operation with Al-Qaeda, he was so clearly in the wrong. You cannot allow evil to prevail simply because taking out that evil would entail some civilian casuaties.

Why is it 9/11 is pumped up as a great evil with three thousand innocents dead, but you dismiss the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis as "some casualties?" The kind of disregard for human life evident in that is frankly appalling.

That last "if" is a rather big issue in this case. Frankly, I've seen nothing to indicate that invading random Middle Eastern nations is going to prevent anything like another terrorist attack.

Neither I nor Bush advocated such a strategy. Invading random Middle Eastern countries would surely do nothing to curb the prevalent anti-American sentiment which occasionally gives rise to terrorists. However, attacking specific Middle Eastern countries which finance, aid, and abet anti-American terrorists will have a beneficial result overall because it will elimate the terrorists.

And even if it did, once Saddam was removed and imprisoned, occupying the nation for what looks like an indefinite period of time has nothing to do with the 'justice' you are talking of.

Do you realize what's going on in Iraq? It's pretty damn close to civil war. Do you know why there's a civil war? Because there is no effective police force to keep sectarian tensions in check and to stop them from evolving to outright warfare. Even with a continued US military presence the democratically-elected government is not strong enough to deal with the internal and external threat posed to it by these terrorists. I shudder to think what would happen without US troops -- most likely, the country would rapidly plunge into civil war and only emerge from it once one sect was ethnically cleansed.

The them or us mentality is pretty powerful... and it's been used to justify a great many morally bankrupt aggressive wars throughout history.

And when we didn't have that mentality, 9/11 happened to US. To fight successfully against terrorism, we must have a "them or us" mentality -- there should be no illusion that we can co-exist peacefully or that they are rational individuals. If we hesitate, we're going to get hit again.

Why is it 9/11 is pumped up as a great evil with three thousand innocents dead, but you dismiss the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis as "some casualties?" The kind of disregard for human life evident in that is frankly appalling.

If a robber attempts to rob a wheelchair-bound, 56-year-old woman, and she draws her .357 pistol and shoots him in the elbow, who do you feel more sorry for -- the woman or the robber? After all, the robber was not trying to harm her; he was simply trying to steal her possessions. Should we always let ourselves be mugged because we don't want to hurt the muggers? That's preposterous! We have the right to defend ourselves. I'm not going to be shedding a tear for the mugger -- he got what was coming to him. Admittedly, the Iraqi civilians did nothing wrong, but in any war, there will be civilian casualties. It's a fact of life. We tried to minimize them as much as possible, but it happens. You have to note that most of the civilians were not killed by US troops, however.

Begoner21;11660156']If a robber attempts to rob a wheelchair-bound, 56-year-old woman, and she draws her .357 pistol and shoots a bus full of school children, who do you feel more sorry for -- the woman or the robber?

fixed for metaphorical accurateness

Begoner21;11660156']
To fight successfully against terrorism, we must have a "them or us" mentality -- there should be no illusion that we can co-exist peacefully or that they are rational individuals.
IRA, ETA et al are cases which prove that statement incorrect.

Admittedly, the Iraqi civilians did nothing wrong, but in any war, there will be civilian casualties. It's a fact of life.

So? By that logic, the people who died on Sept 11th are just casualties too. After all, they did 'declare' war on you previously (USS Cole, !993 WTC, 1997 (?) Embassy bombings). Can we all just shrug off the deaths from the WTC now too?

Phew. Thats a relief! "Meh. Shit happens in war."

IRA, ETA et al are cases which prove that statement incorrect.

Those individuals have a particular goal and are willing to compromise. This is not so of Muslim extremists. They are hell-bent on the destruction of the US, and they are much more powerful than IRA or ETA. What was the largest amount of people killed in an IRA or ETA attack? At least 100 times less than those killed in an Al-Qaeda attack. And Al-Qaeda is 100 times more difficult to negotiate with. Either way, you should never, ever negotiate with terrorists. You give an inch and they'll want a mile.

So? By that logic, the people who died on Sept 11th are just casualties too. After all, they did 'declare' war on you previously (USS Cole, !993 WTC, 1997 (?) Embassy bombings). Can we all just shrug off the deaths from the WTC now too?

Phew. Thats a relief! "Meh. Shit happens in war."

Right, because there's no difference between the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and the removal of an oppressive dictator with minimal collateral damage caused by the US. I guess it would be OK for Israel to nuke Lebanon according to your logic, right? After all, they are at war. Good thing that you liberals don't think that Israel is the big, bad wolf any more. Phew. No, you cannot "shrug off" 9/11 because it was a deliberate attack aimed at killing as many Americans as possible -- it was not like the US invasion of Iraq which was aimed at protecting the US, liberating the people of Iraq, spreading democracy, and removing a authoritarian war criminal who committed serious crimes against humanity.

Begoner21;11660465']Those individuals have a particular goal and are willing to compromise.

Yeah, "Taigs out" daubed in white paint across a freshly burnt out home just screams "compromise".

What was the largest amount of people killed in an IRA or ETA attack? At least 100 times less than those killed in an Al-Qaeda attack.
Oh, so the 'right' or 'wrong' of a situation is based purely on the numerical loss involved. I see.

Either way, you should never, ever negotiate with terrorists. You give an inch and they'll want a mile.
..Or it brings peace. Like in Banda Aceh, Northern Ireland, Spain, Corsica, Uganda, Namibia, South Africa....



Right, because there's no difference between the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and the removal of an oppressive dictator with minimal collateral damage caused by the US. I guess it would be OK for Israel to nuke Lebanon according to your logic, right? After all, they are at war.
Exactly. Using your logic- its ok that people died in war because "Hey, shit happens in war".

Good thing that you liberals don't think that Israel is the big, bad wolf any more.
Don't know what "liberals" have to do with anything.

.... it was not like the US invasion of Iraq which was aimed at protecting the US, liberating the people of Iraq, spreading democracy, and removing a authoritarian war criminal who committed serious crimes against humanity.

On this I can at least agree with you.

Begoner21;11660156']Neither I nor Bush advocated such a strategy. Invading random Middle Eastern countries would surely do nothing to curb the prevalent anti-American sentiment which occasionally gives rise to terrorists. However, attacking specific Middle Eastern countries which finance, aid, and abet anti-American terrorists will have a beneficial result overall because it will elimate the terrorists.


I misspoke. Choosing Iraq wasn't random. It was based on Bush's desire to out-do his father.

Do you realize what's going on in Iraq? It's pretty damn close to civil war. Do you know why there's a civil war? Because there is no effective police force to keep sectarian tensions in check and to stop them from evolving to outright warfare.

I guess our puppet government doesn't have nearly as much authority as we would like.

Even with a continued US military presence the democratically-elected government is not strong enough to deal with the internal and external threat posed to it by these terrorists.

And you are sure there is absolutely nothing at all "terrorist" about the "democratically elected government?" I mean, you know, they're Muslims. They're probably all against us because of our freedoms.

And when we didn't have that mentality, 9/11 happened to US.

Oh, so it was the fact that we didn't categorize everyone as "Muslim/Terrorist" vs "Western/Christian" good and bad guys, that caused 9/11?

To fight successfully against terrorism, we must have a "them or us" mentality -- there should be no illusion that we can co-exist peacefully or that they are rational individuals. If we hesitate, we're going to get hit again.

That's not what I mean by us-or-them. And not when you include, say, the entire muslim population of the world as "them," as so many people like you do. It's not about "illusion of peaceful coexistence," but the illusion of security gained by taking "action" (any action). It's about a black and white mentality leading to becoming a garrison state because "you're either with us or against us." Hence France is now perceived as an enemy, hence being Muslim is suspicious activity.

If a robber attempts to rob a wheelchair-bound, 56-year-old woman, and she draws her .357 pistol and shoots him in the elbow, who do you feel more sorry for -- the woman or the robber?

Wait, so the USA is a wheelchair bound, 56 year old woman?

;)

should we always let ourselves be mugged because we don't want to hurt the muggers? That's preposterous!

Well, in the analogy, you're talking about should we let ourselves be mugged, because we don't want to kill the mugger, his family, his neighborhood and to take over the government of whatever city he is from.

Admittedly, the Iraqi civilians did nothing wrong, but in any war, there will be civilian casualties. It's a fact of life.

Right, thats where your analogy fails and you are forced to just shrug and say it's OK to kill innocent people as long as you feel justified. It's not justified, though, since none of them were the "robbers."

Yeah, "Taigs out" daubed in white paint across a freshly burnt out home just screams "compromise".

Oh, but they did compromise. Unless I'm imagining it, the IRA issued an order for all member to dump their weapons and to cease all military activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#End_of_the_armed_campaign

I would like to see an order issued by Osama saying that they should try peace with the US instead of a fatwa declaring war on the US.

Oh, so the 'right' or 'wrong' of a situation is based purely on the numerical loss involved. I see.

No, I never said anything of the sort. I simply said that it is harder to combat a force the larger and more powerful it is. That is patently obvious. Al-Qaeda cells are widely dispersed throughout the world, they are quite powerful, and they are so fanatical that they do not fear death and simply wish to cause death and destruction. This is not at all like ETA or the IRA.


..Or it brings peace. Like in Banda Aceh, Northern Ireland, Spain, Corsica, Uganda, Namibia, South Africa....

At what cost is the question. You cannot put aside your morals and values, allowing people who commit heinous acts to leave unscathed and untouchable by justice. Sure, you may have peace. All you've lost is all you stand for.

Exactly. Using your logic- its ok that people died in war because "Hey, shit happens in war".

I was being sarcastic. In case you didn't notice, I meant that there was a difference between "the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and the removal of an oppressive dictator with minimal collateral damage caused by the US."

On this I can at least agree with you.

Huh? You don't think that the US invasion was for oil or bases or anything like that? I haven't seen too many people who are so against military action in Iraq thinking that it really was because of freedom and security. I wasn't expecting that one.

I misspoke. Choosing Iraq wasn't random. It was based on Bush's desire to out-do his father.

I'm not saying the following applies to you, but I find it quite hypocritical. Many liberals don't believe in religion because there are no facts to back it up, and there are other explanations that are factually based which can explain various phenomena (ie, the Big Bang, evolution). However, when it comes to wacky conspiracy theories, they believe things despite no proof and evidence to the contrary. For example, the 9/11 conspiracy theory. But they also think that Bush invaded Iraq for a variety of reasons, including, in your case, to out-do his father. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? No. There is a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, however. I guess liberals are religious in their own, special way.

I guess our puppet government doesn't have nearly as much authority as we would like.

A puppet government? Obviously, you do not understand the concept of free democratic elections. It is in no way our "puppet" -- it was freely elected by the Iraqi people and it therefore represents the will of the Iraqi people. It does not represent US interests.

And you are sure there is absolutely nothing at all "terrorist" about the "democratically elected government?" I mean, you know, they're Muslims. They're probably all against us because of our freedoms.

Why do you assume that I think all, or a majority of, Muslims are terrorists? I never said anything to make you draw that conclusion. In fact, religious extremists are just an extremely "vocal" minority of Muslims who do not have much influence in the Iraqi government.

Oh, so it was the fact that we didn't categorize everyone as "Muslim/Terrorist" vs "Western/Christian" good and bad guys, that caused 9/11?

It was the fact that we weren't aware of being in a war against Islamo-fascism worldwide. We weren't aware that they would not stop until every last American was eliminated. We weren't aware that they wanted to kill us and would stop at nothing to do so. It was precisely because we didn't have that mentality that 9/11 happened -- we did not fight terrorism abroad, and it hurt us at home. Well, we learned our lesson now. Never again will we stand idly by while our enemies plot to destroy us.

That's not what I mean by us-or-them. And not when you include, say, the entire muslim population of the world as "them," as so many people like you do. It's not about "illusion of peaceful coexistence," but the illusion of security gained by taking "action" (any action). It's about a black and white mentality leading to becoming a garrison state because "you're either with us or against us." Hence France is now perceived as an enemy, hence being Muslim is suspicious activity.

Ah, "people like me" who are bigoted against Muslims, no? In fact, I do not harbor a grudge against Muslims at all -- or, at least, no bigger a grudge than I harbor against Christians or Jews. Nor do I classify all Muslims as "them." There is, however, a very select sub-group of Muslism whom I classify as "them" -- namely, the Muslim extremists hell-bent on the destruction of the US, and possibly the wider West. I do not adhere to a "with us or against us" mentality -- France is not an enemy. Our only enemies are Muslim extremists. France is certainly not very helpful in our war against them, but they are not enemies any more than Switzerland was Germany's enemy. They're neutral. And we can gain security by taking action -- in fact, it is the only way in which we can gain security. People like that don't listen to reason, as they only want one goal and they are willing to sacrifice their lives to obtain it. They must be eradicated. Period. Otherwise, there will be no safety.

Wait, so the USA is a wheelchair bound, 56 year old woman?

;)

Not just any wheelchair-bound, 56-year-old woman. It's a wheelchair-bound, 56-year-old woman with a gun. And she's not afraid to use it. :)

Well, in the analogy, you're talking about should we let ourselves be mugged, because we don't want to kill the mugger, his family, his neighborhood and to take over the government of whatever city he is from.

Obviously, it's not such a simple analogy because a government is composed of innocent civilians and guilty rulers while a person is just a person who has only one mind. Let's say there was a person who told the mugger to mug the woman. That person is also holding hundreds of people hostage because he's a serial kidnapper (real like scenario, yeah). The woman kills the mugger because the mugger was attempting to stab her. However, he only inflicts a medium-sized gash. The woman then miraculously rises from the wheelchair and shoots the evil kidnapper, killing him. However, she then faints and squashes two of the kidnapped children underneath her. How's that for an apt analogy? :p

Begoner21;11660706']Oh, but they did compromise. Unless I'm imagining it, the IRA issued an order for all member to dump their weapons and to cease all military activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army#End_of_the_armed_campaign

"Taigs out" was a Loyalist para-military phrase used to drive out Catholics/Nationalists. "Brits out" was the Republican para-military phrase used against the Protestant/Unionist population.

After 80 odd years of bitterness, mistrust, warped aims and bloody heinous acts did both sides eventually come to some sort of agreement. But according to you, "compromising with terrorists" leads you nowhere.
To fight successfully against terrorism, we must have a "them or us" mentality -- there should be no illusion that we can co-exist peacefully or that they are rational individuals.

Apparently not.


I would like to see an order issued by Osama saying that they should try peace with the US instead of a fatwa declaring war on the US.
Osama? No. The disaffected, disenfranchised and angry youth that support his 'cause'- yes it's quite possible to change their opinion other than via the gun barrel.



At what cost is the question. You cannot put aside your morals and values, allowing people who commit heinous acts to leave unscathed and untouchable by justice. Sure, you may have peace. All you've lost is all you stand for.
When both sides in a conflict are intent on inflicting worse injury than what was just done onto them, of course dredging it up is bad news and cannot lead to peace. Thats' a prime reason Israel/Palestine is such a mess, and why the 'Truth and Reconciliaton' committee has prevented reprisals in post-apartheid South Africa.

"Hey, you're dead. But you're FREE!" is not the attitude most people like to live by. Being in a perpetual and worsening cyclical pattern of violence is never the progressive answer.


Huh? You don't think that the US invasion was for oil or bases or anything like that? I haven't seen too many people who are so against military action in Iraq thinking that it really was because of freedom and security. I wasn't expecting that one.

Oh no. I believe wholeheatedly that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with protecting the US, liberating the people of Iraq, spreading democracy...[or]... removing a authoritarian war criminal who committed serious crimes against humanity.

..Or it brings peace. Like in Banda Aceh, Northern Ireland, Spain, Corsica, Uganda, Namibia, South Africa.... *Spills coffee* WHAT?! You seriously think the problems in Banda Aceh are over? And you lump the sepratists there with likes of ETA and the IRA? There's a world of difference between what's going on in Indonesia and some loony with a stick of dynamite killing a bunch of innocent people.

*Spills coffee* WHAT?! You seriously think the problems in Banda Aceh are over?
Over, no. Better than what they could be without a peace deal, yes.

And you lump the sepratists there with likes of ETA and the IRA? There's a world of difference between what's going on in Indonesia and some loony with a stick of dynamite killing a bunch of innocent people.

Different points of view really.

You know, it is possible for people to hate each other more than they hate their mutual enemy.

Begoner21;11660156']Neither I nor Bush advocated such a strategy. Invading random Middle Eastern countries would surely do nothing to curb the prevalent anti-American sentiment which occasionally gives rise to terrorists. However, attacking specific Middle Eastern countries which finance, aid, and abet anti-American terrorists will have a beneficial result overall because it will elimate the terrorists.
Sooo... Attacking Iraq which might potentially one day support the terrorists is better then attacking Iran which is actively supporting terrorists? Or what about Saudi Arabia, which is funding the terrorists? Or Egypt, where some of the 9/11 hijackers came from?

I have yet to see any evidence that attacking Iraq will have diminished, weakened or dealt a significant blow to the terrorists in any way.
You know, it is possible for people to hate each other more than they hate their mutual enemy.

Or at the very least, not trust or like each other even if they do have a common enemy.